angelman

Would be funny, but there are no rumours and it won't happen, although funnier things have happened in football.

So why should it be AL that doesn't start rather than the others that have been signed?

I guess a wink and a laugh is more diplomatic than our captain saying "I hope so".

The club did a lot for Lallana and a fair few people would do well to remember that. It's funny, but in these sort of conversations it's always what the player has done for the club, and the other way around is all but forgotten. Isn't it a two way thing? In fact you could say, presuming that no player is bigger than the club, that the player has benefited rather more than the club. And let's not forget, when you say he did a lot for this club, that he isn't a charity working for free but a young man earning the national average wage (if not more, especially if you add image rights, advertising, etc etc.) every single week.

Do you know what sort of difference monetarily there was?

I guess Mutu, although for different reasons, sets a precedence for players being sued by clubs for breach of contract. As for those saying get a second opinion, I think that it entrely right and proper for the club to send their own doctor to check him over. God knows what he is being paid - £50k? £65k?

Not sure he would come to us. Surely he is looking to be at a higher level eg Arsenal.

I don't think Saints have ever been adept at it, do you?

As I wrote in the OP (yet which a lot people seem to have over looked), I was not comparing us to Man U or any of the other top 6 or 7, Juve, Barca, Real, Bayern. I was merely asking whether £1m (which transpires to probably be £2m) is all we can expect from sponsorship. Maybe the thread title should have a question mark. Further on, I did say a measure would be against clubs of a similar stature - maybe the likes of Stoke, WBA, Fulham etc Commercial revenue of £6.7m in 2012/13 surely can be improved on, as after all we are told that the PL is the most watched league in the world.

Latest figures are for the 2012/13 season and were published on 31st March 2014 Commercial income increased from £4.8m in 2011/12 to £6.7m in 2012/13

...and while we are at it, and this is not any criticism aimed at the current regime as it has been going on for ever and a day, you go to many a local sports shop and whose kits do they have on sale? I was at one the other day and you had the usual suspects but no Saints, Bournemouth or Portsmouth. Walk around nearby towns, and while you might see the occasional local shirt, most are the Top 6 + Barca/Madrid. If you can't even appeal to the locals, what chance is there of gaining any wider support?

Maybe look at our peers and see what they are doing and how far behind them we are?

As I said, I am not expecting us to get the same as ManU, but maybe some of the other non- top 6/7 sides.

http://www.givemesport.com/370980-top-10-premier-league-shirt-sponsorship-deals Then there is Sunderland, Fulham, Villa @ £5m, Newcastle at £6m, Chelsea at £18m, Spurs @ £19m, ManC/U & L'pool @ £20m, Arsenal @ £30m

While Oscar Wilde was only half right about sarcasm, I guess you don't see the irony in your reply.

Anyone who drinks Armand de Brignac champagne should not be signed as they have more money than sense. It is made by Cattier and they have never made a decent champagne, and I doubt ever will.

Now I am not comparing us to Man Utd and I am well aware that their global appeal is at a completely different level but..... Kit manufacturer - £75m Shirt sponsor - £30m Compared to us, where we get nothing for kit manufacturer and maybe about £1m for the shirt sponsor. £105m vs £1m!!! As I say, I am not expecting to rival Man U, but surely we can do better than £1m (this figure is a guess but given their turnover it won't be much more). We were told that as a club we were going to be a lot more commercial and exploit avenues that were available. Are we really that unattractive as a club that we cannot get more than £1m? Listening to talkSport, Christian Purslow was saying that in the world of FFP that this (Man U deals), coupled with their £100m gate receipts and TV revenue, gave Utd a huge advantage over everyone else. I know we are at a different level, but if we are to grow as a club and ever be serious about challenging the dominance of those at the top, then we cannot accept £1m per year from the kit and sponsorship.

Richmond, have you ever thought that you might be happier supporting another team?

Agree (and I hate predictive text). Time will tell and the manager obviously thinks that they can do the job, so that's good enough for me.

Are they upgrades? Yes, so no need to worry yourself anymore. And if no, then tough, they ate what we have. But no point in crucifying them before they have kicked a ball.

Dig Dig, as I said, Lambert & Lallana for a combined £30m is a better way at looking at things.

Jos might play a lot better.....

I would suspect that the Lambert (disclosed) and Lallana (undisclosed) fees probably were connected (hence why negotiations with Boremouth rather than a straight 25%) so it might not be best to take RL's fee at face value.

Oh that's great. I see Swansea are attracting a bit of attention now, and they are also being sold off left right and centre. It's the typical English thing, of bigging people up (or at least being complimentary and encouraging) before rounding on them and trying to shoot them down. Oh how I wish to finish above Liverpool and Spurs this forthcoming season - not that I expect to - just to give the bird to the journos who seem to have lost all perspective of objectivity. Love this bit - The Saints will start life without numerous stars after the likes of Adam Lallana, Luke Shaw and Rickie Lambert left for pastures new this summer. "Numerous star the likes of".....and they go and list the only ones to have left, and of course fail to mention the replacements save in passing, who may or may not be better than Lallana and Lambert. What happens then?? Or maybe he was referring to the likes of Forte and Gully?

The thing that saddens me about this sort of article is his stance is a sort of "told you so" one. Does he really want to see a PL that has 6 teams in it, with 3 that can realistically win it? Rhetorical because like all other journalists, the answer is "yes". It is so sad to see football die in this manner especially as the (so called) journalists don't question it. A few teams at the top, fans priced out of things, corporate being the way forward and **** every one else, especially those outside PL and grass roots. How can a serious journalist not see what is happening and not care or write about it? Premier league not being able to attract the best - for those old enough to remember pre-Sky days, can they honestly tell me that football was any less exciting?